Limbo

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't get your problem. Let's see if I can put this simply:

1. The Church teaches P.
2. A book contains position Q that is not in conflict with P.
3. Hence, the relevant bishop gives the book the imprimatur.
4. The imprimatur simply means that Q is not in conflict with P; [b]not that the book contains P nor that Q is the same as P.

Do you get it now?[/b]

Will you stop wasting everybody's time with your nitpicking? Are you saying that what the Cath Ency says regarding this issue isn't Church doctrine?

Designed to present its readers with the full body of Catholic teaching, the Encyclopedia contains not only precise statements of what the Church has defined, but also an impartial record of different views of acknowledged authority on all disputed questions. In all things the object of the Encyclopedia is to give the whole truth without prejudice, national, political or factional.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
Will you stop wasting everybody's time with your nitpicking? Are you saying that what the Cath Ency says regarding this issue isn't Church doctrine?

I'm saying that what the Cath Enc says was consistent with Church doctrine at the time; but need not be identical with it.

EDIT: Not sure what your edit is supposed to achieve.

Originally posted by Palynka
So what? The Church 'DOES NOT KNOW'. That's what I've been saying. You're implying that this means that it doesn't exist, which is clearly false.

On this text you're quoting, the Vatican has an entry SPECIFICALLY on unbaptized children (that I've quoted repeatedly). That claims they have no position on the issue and leave it to the good judgment of their ...[text shortened]... at their position is such, if it's in the site of the Vatican on the issue of Baptism?

What does this mean then:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm saying that what the Cath Enc says was consistent with Church doctrine at the time; but need not be identical with it.

EDIT: Not sure what your edit is supposed to achieve.

And I'm saying that's worthless nitpicking. Didn't Pope Pius XII reaffirm the necessity of children being baptized?

EDIT: On December 20, 1951, Pope Pius XII gave the following allocution to the convention of Italian midwives:

“All that we have said about the protection and care of natural life is with even greater reason true of the supernatural life, which the newborn child receives with baptism. In the present dispensation there is no other means of communicating this life to the child, who has not yet the use of reason. And yet the state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open.

http://www.tldm.org/news8/Limbo.htm


I suppose you will invoke the "Simon says" exception.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What does this mean then:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, [b]children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.[/b]

What is says. That children who have the chance to be baptized, must be. It's explicitly explained in the 4x quote that you like to pretend doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Palynka
What is says. That children who have the chance to be baptized, must be. It's explicitly explained in the 4x quote that you like to pretend doesn't exist.

Where exactly are the words "have the chance to be baptized"? See also the Pope Pius XII quote given above.

Originally posted by no1marauder
And I'm saying that's worthless nitpicking. Didn't Pope Pius XII reaffirm the necessity of children being baptized?

It's not worthless nitpicking if you're going to pick random opinions and/or judgments of the Cath Enc editors and claim that's what the Church taught. I'm sorry, it's just pointing out ignorant (or possibly dishonest) argumentation.

I don't know if PXII specifically reaffirmed the necessity of baptism (the bit you cited from the Jeff Mirus article does not deal with that).

EDIT: Besides the fact that what he's saying is not ex cathedra (what you call the "Simon Says" exception -- it's not my fault you have a problem with it), the fact remains that at no point does he say that it is a logical impossibility for unbaptised children to be saved -- just that we can't do anything or currently think of anything that would "communicate" saving grace to an unbaptised child. That's what the Catechism identifies as the "hope" in the parts Palynka is citing.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's not worthless nitpicking if you're going to pick random opinions and/or judgments of the Cath Enc editors and claim that's what the Church taught. I'm sorry, it's just pointing out ignorant (or possibly dishonest) argumentation.

I don't know if PXII specifically reaffirmed the necessity of baptism (the bit you cited from the Jeff Mirus article does not deal with that).

WHAT??????? Did you even bother to read my posts???? Talk about dishonest!

EDIT: And this from someone who has previously stated ON THIS FORUM that he believed in fetuses going to limbo to resolve this very problem! Amazing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
WHAT??????? Did you even bother to read my posts???? Talk about dishonest!

It's not dishonest to point out that the bits of PXII you cited prior to your EDIT in your last post did not deal with the topic.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's not dishonest to point out that the bits of PXII you cited prior to your EDIT in your last post did not deal with the topic.

It is dishonest to suggest I was using "random opinions and/or judgments" of the Editors of the CE when they were quoting official Church documents and figures like St. Iraneus and St. Augustine.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Where exactly are the words "have the chance to be baptized"? See also the Pope Pius XII quote given above.

Did I say those were the exact words? No. I said the view of the RCC on this issue was explained explicitly.

As for the Pope's quote 'This way is not open' doesn't mean there are no other ways.

But why do you think that your beliefs (or mine) about how consistent is the RCC doctrine are relevant into determining what the RCC doctrine is?

The most recent Vatican claims it is unknown for the RCC if unbaptized children are saved or not. Period. Other theological opinions about this issue are not RCC doctrine. It's that simple.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's not worthless nitpicking if you're going to pick random opinions and/or judgments of the Cath Enc editors and claim that's what the Church taught. I'm sorry, it's just pointing out ignorant (or possibly dishonest) argumentation.

I don't know if PXII specifically reaffirmed the necessity of baptism (the bit you cited from the Jeff Mirus article ...[text shortened]... at's what the Catechism identifies as the "hope" in the parts Palynka is citing.

Yes it is "logically impossible" for Baptism to be NECESSARY for salvation (as is OFFICIAL Church doctrine repeated many times ex cathedra) but not necessary.

Maybe LH can answer this; which is an instrument which has ex cathedra effect - the Catechism or the Council of Trent?

LH, correct me if I am wrong here.

The RCC teaches that Baptism assures salvation for those who die in a state of Grace. However,
the Church allows (as we discussed some years ago regarding [/i]Dominus Jesus[/i]) for the
possibility that God, in His inestimable goodness and graciousness, allows both schismatic/heretical
Christians (i.e., those who do not agree with the dogmas of the RCC) and non-believers to
enter the kingdom of heaven through the mediation of the RCC.

So, through the mediation of the RCC, unbaptized children would enter heaven.

#1s objection, though, is legitimate. Either something (in this case Baptism) is necessary or it is
not necessary. Clearly, Baptism is not necessary (as Dominus Jesus clearly indicates).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
LH, correct me if I am wrong here.

The RCC teaches that Baptism assures salvation for those who die in a state of Grace. However,
the Church allows (as we discussed some years ago regarding [/i]Dominus Jesus[/i]) for the
possibility that God, in His inestimable goodness and graciousness, allows both schismatic/heretical
Christians (i.e., those who do ...[text shortened]... sary. Clearly, Baptism is not necessary (as Dominus Jesus clearly indicates).

Nemesio

What is Dominus Jesus?

EDIT: Never mind, I found it. I'll wait on LH's response to comment.